The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedied. - Mairi ( talk) 18:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC) reply

moved from CFD

Mislabled when I created it. Falcon8765 ( talk) 07:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Support as a speedy - but I don't remember this category ever having been proposed at WP:WSS/P... or did I miss it in a big group proposal somewhere? Grutness... wha? 02:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I think this was in with a few others. Waacstats ( talk) 10:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mairi ( talk) 01:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I see these tags all over the place, and they just seem pointless clutter to me. What is the audience?: People who read and edit these articles are interested in plants, and might have an interest in a particular family or genus; but I don't believe there are m/any editors out there who have a specific interest in trees (woody plants with a single trunk expressing apical dominance) as opposed to shrubs, vines, lianes, etcetera. We now have an excellent stub hierarchy for plant articles, with or without this particular stub type. In particular, every tree stub already has a taxon-specific stub-type. This was, I think, a reasonable stub type when it was created back in 2005; but in my opinion the plant stub hierarchy is so nicely developed now, and this particular stub type so lacking in a target audience, that eliminating it would be an improvement.

• Delete. Hesperian 01:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Hesperian, general stub types are useful. In this case, there are at least four purposes that such a stub as this serves:

1. Often, a stub article will be written in such a way that a specific taxonomic type cannot be readily assigned;
2. Stub-sorting operates on a several-stage process. No general stub-sorter - and certainly no average article writer - can be expected to know all stub types, so stubs are assigned to a fairly general stub type before their stub classification is more finely honed by stub sorters who know about specific places. So we have general types such as {{ geo-stub}}, {{ US-stub}}, {{ bio-stub}} and the like which serve largely as holding types until a more specific stub type is applied. The most generic of all is simply {{ stub}};
3. Some stubs relate to trees in general, not to specific taxonomies. If we got rid of {{ tree-stub}}, how would we deal with an item like heart rot or Massenerhebung effect?
4. Stub types form - ironically enough - a tree which reflects the permanent category tree, and for very much the same reason. As such, the category at least serves a very important navigational purpose.

Grutness... wha? 02:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I grant your points 1 and 3.

With respect to 2. and 4., tree-stub is not a general stub type in the sense of sitting at the base of a hierarchy of more specific stubs types into which tree stubs may be dispersed. There are only a few sub-types, and these are even more hideous than tree-stub—{{ Fabaceae-tree-stub}}, for example; if this were in category space it would be immediately and unceremoniously dumped per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Trivial intersection. Certainly there is no audience for such an obscure topic. In practice what happens is the tree-stub category fills up and up and up. We add taxonomic stub types to these stubs, but the tree-stub tag itself cannot be dispersed because the sub-types don't exist. You may counter that the solution is to create the sub-types, but what would you create? More trivial intersections? There doesn't seem to be an coherent way to subdivide the topic.

So what we have is a stub type with no audience, and with no coherent method for breaking it into sub-types that would have an audience. And what bang do we get for our buck? The ability to tag taxon-vague articles with {{ tree-stub}}, which could be achieved just as well by redirecting it to {{ plant-stub}}; and a nice stub type for half a dozen "trees in general" articles. Hesperian 02:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I take your point about it being a strange mid-level stage in the hierarchy, but am concerned that it will swamp Cat:Plant stubs and take it past the splitting threshold. Perhaps we need to add it to the urgent "to do" list at WP:WSS/TD... Grutness... wha? 23:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Keep What would we do with Carl G. Fenner, National Register of Big Trees, or other forestry articles if this were deleted? I think I'd probably support removing species articles from this category, though. I've notified WP:FORESTRY about this. Kingdon ( talk) 12:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Despite ast abuse of this category (by people like me), it seems like it has a place. That said, it shouldn't be used alongside other subcats of "plant-stub". Guettarda ( talk) 13:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC) reply
• Keep - per the positions above, can't say much else. We shouldn't assume things about the audience. Lәo_{( βǃʘʘɱ)} 06:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.